Forum Post: Change starts locally. Run progressives in primaries, vote in local and congressional elections. No President Nader fantasies this time, please.
Posted 12 years ago on Oct. 7, 2011, 5:08 p.m. EST by racecar
(5)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
When the time comes for political action: Recall that the Tea Party was effective because they worked within the political structure and swung the government to the right through running right-wingers in Republican primaries and TURNING UP TO VOTE in congressional elections. This is the way to do it. Change has to start locally. Endorse candidates you believe in for Democratic primaries. In a local or special situation, perhaps a third-party or independent candidate is viable. But please be serious. An election is not a time to protest or demonstrate the purity of your ideals. It is too late by election time: you must accept the lesser evil at that point (that would be the Democrat, okay?). And do so with conviction! It's literally the only right thing to do! No silly protest votes. No President Nader 2012 or whatever. Get involved at the local level, do all you can, and when the election comes, vote for the one who is less evil. This is how it works. Keep up the momentum!
Maybe it is simply time to get rid of all evil. Can we vote out evil? Maybe.
Propaganda has jaded your views. I am as progressive as they come and I went to tea party rallies. Very few right wingers, but all were welcome. I protested and rallied to stop the waste and to stop spending on the backs of our youth. Open your mind brother. We all want the same thing, less government. Government leaders (Frank, Dodd, Bush, etc.) got us in this mess. Old fashion american values will save us.
But it doesn't seem to actually work. Regardless of party affiliation or what a candidate promises in a platform to get elected, it's never what they end up doing.
Even if a candidate has the best intentions, once in the system, the system either overwhelms them or they succumb to greed.
That's what it looks like to me, anyway. And besides, accepting the 'less evil' candidate is simply not acceptable.
A choice between two bad things is admittedly not very satisfying, but if that is truly your only choice (think Bush/Gore 2000) then you can have a clear conscience in choosing the less evil one. It is ridiculous how some say there is "no difference".
I just think that instead of perpetuating a system that gives us a choice of only two degrees of evil, we should strive for a system that generates good choices.
I understand what you're saying though, and sometimes the difference in choices, while neither is ideal, can be significant.
Yes, striving for right has always entailed progress by degrees.